Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't disclose whether this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, affects related data, or has side effects. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficiently structured in a single sentence with the core action first. However, it includes redundant API path information ('DELETE /rest/v1.0/projects/{project_id}/commitment_change_order_batches/{id}') that doesn't add value for an AI agent, slightly reducing conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'Commitment Change Order Batch' is, what gets deleted, whether deletion is permanent, what permissions are required, or what the response looks like. The context signals show 2 required parameters but provide no behavioral context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (project_id and id). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'Commitment Change Order Batch', providing a specific action and target. It distinguishes the resource type (batch) from individual change orders, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling deletion tools like 'delete_commitment_change_order' or 'delete_prime_change_order_batch'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, consequences, or sibling tools like 'delete_commitment_change_order' (for individual items) or 'delete_prime_change_order_batch' (for prime contracts). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.